↓ Skip to main content

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Assay With Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid as a Single Test or Combined With Conventional Assays for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in China: A Two-Center…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Comprehensive Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Assay With Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid as a Single Test or Combined With Conventional Assays for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in China: A Two-Center Prospective Study
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00444
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaofu Pan, Shoufeng Yang, Margaret A. Deighton, Yue Qu, Liang Hong, Feifei Su

Abstract

Introduction: The Xpert MTB/RIF is recommended by the World Health Organization as a first line rapid test for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB); however, China does not routinely use this test, partially due to the lack of a sufficient number of systematic evaluations of this assay in local patients. The aims of this study were to comprehensively assess the diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF, either alone or in combination with conventional assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary TB in adult Chinese patients.Methods:Xpert MTB/RIF tests were performed in 190 adult patients with suspected pulmonary TB, using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) as test specimens. In parallel, conventional tests were carried out using the same BALF samples. Using two different reference standards, the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF, conventional assays and their combinations were evaluated.Results:Using mycobacterial culture as the reference comparator, Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be superior to smear-microscopy in detectingMycobacterium tuberculosis. When final diagnosis, based on clinical criteria, was employed as the reference standard, Xpert MTB/RIF showed an even higher accuracy of 72.1%, supported by a sensitivity of 61.1% and specificity of 96.6%. Xpert MTB/RIF also demonstrated a powerful capability to identify pulmonary TB cases undetected by culture or smear-microscopy. Combining smear-microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be the most accurate early predictor for pulmonary TB. Rifampicin resistance reported by Xpert MTB/RIF slightly deviated from that by phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing and requires further study with a larger sample size.Conclusion:This two-center prospective study highlights the value of Xpert MTB/RIF with BALF in diagnosing pulmonary TB in adult Chinese patients. These findings might contribute to the optimization of current diagnostic algorithms for pulmonary TB in China.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Other 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 13%
Psychology 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2020.
All research outputs
#12,133,366
of 15,915,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#9,774
of 14,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,161
of 280,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#217
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,915,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.